• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slander in Politics

If a person smears a Christian as a "homophobe," should that person returh fire?


  • Total voters
    27

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have a few questions.

I notice that there are people who are more socially-liberal who, continuously, insult the more socially-conservative for their stances on social issues.

This is what I ask: If a liberal slanders a Christian by calling him/her a "homophobe/whatever," why should that person not turn around and insult the person's degenerate moral character?

What do we do about this? Why is it that those more on the left are allowed to smear people with epithets of "racist/homophobe/bigot/etc?"

Why shouldn't those being smeared with those malicious insults not turn around and at least chastise them on their moral degeneracy?

Or, better yet, why can't we seem to get people [all people] to stop smearing/insulting eachother?
 
Calling someone a homophobe or racist is not slander if it is accurate. While many accusations of bigotry are nothing but smear tactics, that doesn't mean that they aren't plenty of valid ones as well. You are free to respond with socially conservative pejoratives if you wish. You could call people fornicators, adulterers, moneychangers, eaters of shellfish ect.
 
Calling someone a homophobe or racist is not slander if it is accurate. While many accusations of bigotry are nothing but smear tactics, that doesn't mean that they aren't plenty of valid ones as well. You are free to respond with socially conservative pejoratives if you wish. You could call people fornicators, adulterers, moneychangers, eaters of shellfish ect.

"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.

:shrug:
 
"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.

:shrug:
Most Christians have none of those ill feelings towards homosexuals. I can certainly that there's at least a few, especially since I work with two Christians (Catholic, but close enough lol) who have expressed their regret that we don't live in the old days where you could just bring a gay person out in the woods, shoot them and no one would make a big deal out of it. I'm not sure exactly what time they are referring to, but that certainly sounds like hatred to me.

Regardless, I've met many Christians who denounce atheists as immoral heathens and such. It works both ways. If you're really sitting there wondering why the left just constantly name calls and why the right never name calls then you're just completely oblivious to what's going on around you. Both sides do it and it's silly when both sides do it.
 
"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.

:shrug:

that's just not true. blackdog is a christian and i respect, though disagree with, his views that homosexuality is a sin. he is not, however, a homophobe. there are other self proclaimed christians on this board who ARE bigots, however. please don't pretend that just because someone claims to be christian they cant' also be homophobic.
 
"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.

:shrug:

The targeting of homosexuality is quite irrational. How many political and religious leaders condemn people who remarry for committing adultery? Reagan managed to get the moral majority support even as he wallowed in his sinfulness with Nancy. The bible if full of moral condemnations for much of American everyday life and yet why are gays the only ones who seem to be at the receiving end of religious condemnation?
 
that's just not true. blackdog is a christian and i respect, though disagree with, his views that homosexuality is a sin. he is not, however, a homophobe. there are other self proclaimed christians on this board who ARE bigots, however. please don't pretend that just because someone claims to be christian they cant' also be homophobic.

I never said to be a Christian you can't be a "homophobe." Actually, upon further reflection, there is nothing Christian about hating homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin, yet don't hate the sinner, are not homophobes. All the time, like in that thread about the Pope, I see it more from the socially-liberal who keep calling Christians/Catholics homophobes/crazy/irrational/whatever.

I know there are liberal who are respectful. I use qualifiers instead of absolute statements.

However, it is true no true Christian can be homophobic because to be homophobic you must have the element of hatred. [Iirc, you must have an element of hatred to be "phobic" of something]
 
The targeting of homosexuality is quite irrational. How many political and religious leaders condemn people who remarry for committing adultery? Reagan managed to get the moral majority support even as he wallowed in his sinfulness with Nancy. The bible if full of moral condemnations for much of American everyday life and yet why are gays the only ones who seem to be at the receiving end of religious condemnation?

Firstly, there are many who call themselves christians, yet do not adhere to the principles in the NT. Also, from the Christian perspective, we are humans born in sin, thus there will never be "perfect" Christians. Also, homosexuality is not the only thing looked down upon based on Christian morals. There's also fornication, waste, adultery, etc, etc, yet so many people do it that it's often overlooked. That doesn't mean, from the true Christian perspective, that those things aren't wrong.
 
I have a few questions.

I notice that there are people who are more socially-liberal who, continuously, insult the more socially-conservative for their stances on social issues.

This is what I ask: If a liberal slanders a Christian by calling him/her a "homophobe/whatever," why should that person not turn around and insult the person's degenerate moral character?

What do we do about this? Why is it that those more on the left are allowed to smear people with epithets of "racist/homophobe/bigot/etc?"

Why shouldn't those being smeared with those malicious insults not turn around and at least chastise them on their moral degeneracy?

Is there moral degeneracy though? Is calling someone a homophobe morally degenerate?

Or, better yet, why can't we seem to get people [all people] to stop smearing/insulting eachother?

There you go.

(But is homophobe an insult in the first place? If so, does that mean being the opposite of a homophobe is virtuous?)
 
How about those Christians that call me a heathen communist because I don't believe in god. Or those Christians who call me a baby killer because I am pro-choice, without even hearing why? This is a two road street.
 
I don't care about people's homophobic views of gays as long as they are not trying to change others. That is the defining difference between true Christians and activist Christians. The former knows what sin is but concerns themselves with their own purity, the latter sticks their nose into everyone's business and tries to control sexuality.
 
Christians have been judging people by their own standards for about 2000 years so I think they can handle it...
 
Firstly, there are many who call themselves christians, yet do not adhere to the principles in the NT. Also, from the Christian perspective, we are humans born in sin, thus there will never be "perfect" Christians. Also, homosexuality is not the only thing looked down upon based on Christian morals. There's also fornication, waste, adultery, etc, etc, yet so many people do it that it's often overlooked. That doesn't mean, from the true Christian perspective, that those things aren't wrong.

1: The "true" Christian thing is bull****. You can say it all you want but if the Bible was clear on what a Christian is then we wouldn't have hundreds of different sects of Christians in the first place. I can't define atheism as "someone who is really smart" and then claim that if you're dumb you must be a Christian any more than you can claim that it's impossible for a bigoted person to be a Christian. Just doesn't work that way.

2. If my religion included a belief, which i hold dearly, that blacks shouldn't be able to marry, especially marry any white person, should have separate water fountains and bathrooms, shouldn't be able to serve in the military etc. but I swore up and down that I really don't hate blacks, would you be perfectly fine with that and defend me from anyone that calls me a bigot or racist? I'm positive that most Christians really don't have any problems with gays, they realize that they're just people that were born with different traits and that hating a gay person is like hating a left handed person, just down right silly, However, when you hear some comments coming from some Christians you start to wonder whether at least alittle bit, from at least a small minority, hold their beliefs out of adherence to their religion or whether a small percentage is coming from just hatred of gays. I don't hear Christians trying to ban adulterers from being able to re-marry or from joining the army, so I have to wonder why they spend so much time worrying about whether gays can get married or join the army.
 
Name calling goes both ways, and it's disingenous to pretend otherwise. I can't count the number of insults I have received from conservatives because of my (usually) liberal social views. Nor can I count the number of insults I have received from liberals because I have "conservative" views on some issues. Throw religion into the mix and the pious get riotious because they believe god gave them personal permission to be sanctimonious pricks.

This thread is basically drawing a partisian line in the sand, and asking why everyone on the other side of that line is mean-spirited and wrong. Not usually the best way to look for common ground.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, there are many who call themselves christians, yet do not adhere to the principles in the NT. Also, from the Christian perspective, we are humans born in sin, thus there will never be "perfect" Christians. Also, homosexuality is not the only thing looked down upon based on Christian morals. There's also fornication, waste, adultery, etc, etc, yet so many people do it that it's often overlooked. That doesn't mean, from the true Christian perspective, that those things aren't wrong.

Well then I pose the question to you Wake. Do you politically advocate legally banning divorce and re-marrying (with a few exceptions) according to scripture?
 
I have a few questions.

I notice that there are people who are more socially-liberal who, continuously, insult the more socially-conservative for their stances on social issues.

This is what I ask: If a liberal slanders a Christian by calling him/her a "homophobe/whatever," why should that person not turn around and insult the person's degenerate moral character?

What do we do about this? Why is it that those more on the left are allowed to smear people with epithets of "racist/homophobe/bigot/etc?"

Why shouldn't those being smeared with those malicious insults not turn around and at least chastise them on their moral degeneracy?

Or, better yet, why can't we seem to get people [all people] to stop smearing/insulting eachother?

And those on the left get called socialists, commies, hippies, anti-America "hate the military" and worse. Name-calling and mudslinging is all part of the game. I don't see what's the big deal. If someone is indeed a homophobe, i don't see what's wrong with calling them out on it when it's accurate.
 
Last edited:
"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.

:shrug:

ehhh the two are not mutually exclusive.

Personally I think heterosexism is a much bigger problem in society than homophobia, but that's just me :shrug:
 
Christians have been judging people by their own standards for about 2000 years so I think they can handle it...

The Bible is made up of judgement calls even though it includes the Thou Shall Not Judge thing.. It is no wonder a lot of Christians talk out both sides of their mouth..
 
A rather weird thing is that there are a number of homophobes who are homosexual themselves. This manifests itself in self-loathing and homophobia but in its most its extreme the existence of many homosexual serial killers, Dahmer, Gacy and Corll being among the most notable, but there a literally dozens of others in the US alone.

Ego-dystonic sexual orientation
 
"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.

:shrug:

Viewing homosexuality as a sin base on a book written nearly two thousand years ago is an irrational contempt for homosexuals. Following the bible literally is irrational in and of itself, viewing something as a sin is to have contempt for it.
 
"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.

In my experience some most certainly do. Having said that, I try to be careful not to call someone using homophobic language a 'homophobe', but to point out when an argument, inference or insult is homophobic. Not everyone who makes a homophobic/racist/bigotted comment is, ergo a homophobe/racist/bigot. A problem with this is that those making such comments, on having it pointed out to them, often take that as meaning you are calling them a homophobe etc.

Should I stop pointing out when hate speech is being used, whether intentionally or, more often, by mistake? I certainly don't intend to.
 
The term homophobe is a pseudo-psychoanalytical attempt to diagnose one's opponent. It is sinister and silly.
We've had this out before, and recently. It's a noun deriving from another noun, 'homophobia' and along with the adjective 'homophobic' in modern standard English (American, British or World) means, 'extreme and irrational dislike of homosexuals'. It means that irrespective of its origins. 'Homophobic' I repeat, is an adjective, not a diagnosis. Of course if you'd like to cite dictionary definitions that prove me wrong, be my guest.
 
That ignores its etymology completely. We don't have to accept neologisms just because they are served up to us.

It was coined by George Weinburg, a 'psychotherapist';

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/homophobia.html

Though I do not think that we would need quite as direct a link as this to see that the term has obvious links to pseudo-psychoanalytical conceptions; claiming a phobia, or psychiatric disorder, as an attempt to diagnose one's opponents.

You appear to simply be arguing that because the word has become popular we must accept it. I disagree. I will not accept it and will point out its origin and flaws.
 
Last edited:
That ignores its etymology completely. We don't have to accept neologisms just because they are served up to us.
No we do not, but 99% of people don't know what etymology is, or a neologism. They are served because the assumption is the majority of people are ignorant - therefore if there is any way to stir them and get them to move to your side, or conversely to move them away from someone else by using inappropriate and even incorrect language or even styles of language, then it's an effective tactic.
 
Back
Top Bottom